The BBC ignores the funeral of 31 Yemeni journalists killed in a targeted strike by Israel - so much for press freedom
Archived version: https://archive.is/newest/https://www.thecanary.co/skwawkbox/2025/09/17/bbc-ignores-funeral-of-31-yemeni-journalists-murdered-by-israel/
Disclaimer: The article linked is from a single source with a single perspective. Make sure to cross-check information against multiple sources to get a comprehensive view on the situation.
Wait so they did mention the newspapers were struck? If they did that why would anyone feel the need to bitch about them ´ignoring the funerals´?
Because more journalists have died in Gaza than all other wars combined, and BBC is trying to present this genocide and blatant disregard for life as if it is just an accident that only deserves one paragraph in one article on a website.
Should they cover every journalist´s funeral (especially if they´ve already covered them being killed)? What other coverage should they drop to create the space? What if they lose all their readers because they´re covering nothing else but funerals?
That would literally only happen in Gaza because of Israel’s genocide. Israel is a terrorist colonial imperialist racist state. Their prime minister is being prosecuted for fraud and corruption as he orders his military to sniper babies and children in the head and chest. So yes.
You sound like a very sad person.
WARNING: graphic content of a genocide victim perpetrated by Israeli government
EXTREMELY GRAPHIC CONTENT OF A GENOCIDE VICTIM IN GAZA
https://midwest.social/post/35546981
Why aren´t you reporting on that child´s burial? I guess you´re trying to hide it from us, just like the friggin´ BBC!
Also, you sound like a happy person
Ok, so I assume you don’t really pay attention to the news, or have any understanding of how journalism generally works, which is understandable, no judgement here.
There’s a difference between “Two missiles hit an area, destroying several buildings including two newspapers and killing over 30” and “Israel targets Yemeni press in strikes destroying two newspaper offices, killing over 30 journalists.” One looks like a little whoopsie-daisy mistake, where they are only announcing in a small article the tragedy that has happened due to equally tragic circumstances. It is doing its bare minimum to acknowledge an event while minimizing all details. The other lays the obvious responsibility and intent at the doorstep of the people who did it.
It’s “driver struck during altercation with police” and “fleeing unarmed teen shot in back multiple times by officer during traffic stop.” They convey some of the same basic information, but with one of them sterilizing its language so much that it’s technically correct while avoiding the details that make the people in power look bad.
If you read about a missile strike hitting newspapers´ offices and killing a bunch of journalists and you think that must be ´a little whoopsie-daisy mistake´, that just makes me think that you´re not part of their target audience.
They have the CBBC that would explain things more thoroughly if they consider it necessary or you could look for outside sources that explain how airstrikes work, which in turn frees up space to add other information.
Likewise, I don´t think that the BBC believes that their target audience requires a follow-up article to zxplain to them that the victims received a funeral.